Pete Posted May 16, 2005 Posted May 16, 2005 15 people dead so far and the blood is on Newsweeks hands...
Wacka Posted May 16, 2005 Posted May 16, 2005 The left loves slogans so much, here's one: "Newsweek lied and people died!"
Alaska Darin Posted May 16, 2005 Posted May 16, 2005 The left loves slogans so much, here's one: "Newsweek lied and people died!" 337886[/snapback] Conservative hippies UNITE!
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 16, 2005 Posted May 16, 2005 The problem here, among others, is that I hear a lot from the left side of the aisle as to how much we should be working to "win the hearts and minds" "seek out the reasons and adress them" etc. Do you have ANY idea how mauch damage this just did to those efforts? 337869[/snapback] Probably irrepairable too. Even if Newsweek somehow went to every single Muslim and told them "the story's false, we screwed up, it never happened, we're sorry", people'd STILL forget the apology and remember the story. And when the Islamic world calls for an investigation into the story, and the US response is "There's nothing to investigate, Newsweek admitted the story's fabricated", all anyone will remember is "The US refused to investigate the allegations." Were I in Scott McClellan's postion, if Newsweek has a White House press pass, I'd be making serious noise about pulling it. Unconscionably stupid bush-league mistake on their part, at least as bad as anything Rather was ever blamed for.
Thurman's Helmet Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 "I'm so outraged, I'm going to write my local congressman and then....DING! Oh, my hot pockets are done, mmmmm Cheeseburger hot pockets...aaaaaaaahhhhrrrrrrrgggghh...... Oh snap! Time for that hunky Ryan Seacrest CLICK"
VABills Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 "I'm so outraged, I'm going to write my local congressman and then....DING! Oh, my hot pockets are done, mmmmm Cheeseburger hot pockets...aaaaaaaahhhhrrrrrrrgggghh...... Oh snap! Time for that hunky Ryan Seacrest CLICK" 337998[/snapback] Too bad they don't have kabob hot pockets in Afghanistan. memories tend to be a little longer over there, and that is where the problems are.
TheMadCap Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 The retraction's not going to make one damned bit of difference, either. It's not like the Islamic world is going to read it and say "Oh...we were wrong, we're sorry. Carry on." And I'm sure the irony of the Afghanistanis rioting over the loss of a single copy of a widely printed book when they destroyed two literally irreplacable religious icons themselves back in '99-'00 is lost on precisely everyone. 337569[/snapback] Refresh me on this please....
Ghost of BiB Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 Refresh me on this please.... 338284[/snapback] Taliban
Adam Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 screw the media....they think they are entitled to do whatever they want....they really need to be taught a lesson.
stuckincincy Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 Here's the kicker....they used an UNNAMED source without verification! 337586[/snapback] Reminds me of Dan Rather, with his attempt to stab Bush with his National Guard "reports". Good ole Dan...I still remember him and Diane Sawyer in 1989 putting faces and names of protesters on tv in Tienamen Square in 1989. Good for their ratings - too bad those they fingered "disappeared".
TheMadCap Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 Reminds me of Dan Rather, with his attempt to stab Bush with his National Guard "reports". Good ole Dan...I still remember him and Diane Sawyer in 1989 putting faces and names of protesters on tv in Tienamen Square in 1989. Good for their ratings - too bad those they fingered "disappeared". 338325[/snapback] Good job Danny boy!!!!!!! Kind of like when someone, I can't remember which talking head it was, made the statement "they probaly already have enough evidence to convict him", in reference to poor Richard Jewle.
Campy Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 Is it totally beyond belief that the story was true and that Newsweek is backing off at the request of the government? Considering how many people here are calling for reinstituting full-fledged censorship of the media, it wouldn't be totally out of the question for something like that to occur, would it?
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 Is it totally beyond belief that the story was true and that Newsweek is backing off at the request of the government? Considering how many people here are calling for reinstituting full-fledged censorship of the media, it wouldn't be totally out of the question for something like that to occur, would it? 338360[/snapback] I thought of that but wouldn't Newsweek want to blow the cover on this type of government intrusion? I would rather be honest in the end. They can't prove it as fact? They have to back off? There is a lot of stuff floating out there, they should be careful not to fall into a propaganda trap that is aimed at making the media out to be worse than it already is.
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 Is it totally beyond belief that the story was true and that Newsweek is backing off at the request of the government? Considering how many people here are calling for reinstituting full-fledged censorship of the media, it wouldn't be totally out of the question for something like that to occur, would it? 338360[/snapback] Thanks for putting that into words for me. I don't know what to make of this, either way it is a pretty god-awful situation. But I don't think shutting down the press and limiting it to the official party line (how we hated the Soviets yet are talking about emulating them -- irony) is a good idea at all. But if Newsweek indeed erred with the source they cited, the blood is on their hands and the ensuing economic hit they are about to take is justified. The truth is probably lost somewhere in-between as usual.
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 Another question, unpoliticized for your pleasure, I just honestly would like to know: if the story is indeed untrue, what sort of motivation would the "unnamed source" have for telling it, knowing the damage it could cause either way?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 17, 2005 Author Posted May 17, 2005 Thanks for putting that into words for me. I don't know what to make of this, either way it is a pretty god-awful situation. But I don't think shutting down the press and limiting it to the official party line (how we hated the Soviets yet are talking about emulating them -- irony) is a good idea at all. But if Newsweek indeed erred with the source they cited, the blood is on their hands and the ensuing economic hit they are about to take is justified. The truth is probably lost somewhere in-between as usual. 338381[/snapback] Look, during WWII tha American Government censored to press to ensure it wasn't aiding and abetting the enemy. If youa sk me, that was the government's one huge mistake in the Vietnam Era and it's being repeated today. They should have taken the Gulf War or WWII approach to the media this time around. Controlled access.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 Thanks for putting that into words for me. I don't know what to make of this, either way it is a pretty god-awful situation. But I don't think shutting down the press and limiting it to the official party line (how we hated the Soviets yet are talking about emulating them -- irony) is a good idea at all. But if Newsweek indeed erred with the source they cited, the blood is on their hands and the ensuing economic hit they are about to take is justified. The truth is probably lost somewhere in-between as usual. 338381[/snapback] I don't disagree on the idea of censorship...but the flip-side of that argument I keep hearing implies that freedom of the press carries with it freedom from any responsibility for their reporting. I don't want to see the press censored...but I do want to see the press held officially culpable for egregiously irresponsible reporting (particularly when a story KILLS people).
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 At Fox news America comes first. That's what is wrong with the rest of the media. They are Americans FIRST. If I was Rather or those CBS guys who interviewed Saddam several years ago, I would then go to the military and tell them everything I saw, on the off chance it may have helped get that scum. 337829[/snapback] I find it amusing that you think the media's job is to do the government's job, or that the media would somehow know more about Saddam than the military would. If it troubles you so much, why don't we just get rid of the first amendment and start subscribing to the "Uncle Sam Times"? Neo-Stalinism rules! I also find it amusing that you think Fox News is any less driven by capital than NBC, CBS, CNN or any other news division. Preposterous. If you honestly believe this, you are as brand-driven and media manipulated as any of the "lemmings" you and your pals chastise.
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 I don't disagree on the idea of censorship...but the flip-side of that argument I keep hearing implies that freedom of the press carries with it freedom from any responsibility for their reporting. I don't want to see the press censored...but I do want to see the press held officially culpable for egregiously irresponsible reporting (particularly when a story KILLS people). 338388[/snapback] Again, if the story is false, and people died because of it, this is unacceptable and possibly illegal. If so, those responsbile should see charges or some heavy fine/suit for it. Also, as fans of the free-market system I'm sure you all understand the hit Newsweek is going to take here, whatever the facts. They are going to be hurting, and that reaction is part of the responsibility they bear if the source was bad. My question about the source remains unanswered, though. If the source did lie, then ultimately Newsweek's trusted source is most responsible. If not, then what happened, here?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 17, 2005 Author Posted May 17, 2005 Again, if the story is false, and people died because of it, this is unacceptable and possibly illegal. If so, those responsbile should see charges or some heavy fine/suit for it. Also, as fans of the free-market system I'm sure you all understand the hit Newsweek is going to take here, whatever the facts. They are going to be hurting, and that reaction is part of the responsibility they bear if the source was bad. My question about the source remains unanswered, though. If the source did lie, then ultimately Newsweek's trusted source is most responsible. If not, then what happened, here? 338394[/snapback] The source may be responsible, but if he did lie, it was the Newsweek editorial staff's job to catch the lie before it made it to press.
Recommended Posts